Cloak of the Walking Wounded

[Mad Hamish]

Sorry, but that's not "creative". That's using the rules to bypass an effect and effectively have two slots in one place, and using whichever slot you prefer. Whether or not it's effective rules as written, what it winds up being is "My character wears two cloaks!" and you using the rules to get a mechanical effect.

It's a character using up a lot of actions to be able to change his neck slot item.
Would you have the same feeling if the character removed his normal neck slot and put on the healing slot?

There's no role-playing creativity here. It's essentially exploiting the rules (which are not actual rules of the game here, but your misreadings of them - but you can reverse engineer for a similar effect) in such a way that no character in a game would really do it. It is, as said above, nothing else than a "bag of rats".

I disagree with the idea that no character in the game would do it.
If I had a magic necklace that will heal you and something else that was more generally useful but suppressed the necklace and need healing it would be perfectly sensible for me to wear the necklace and the other item and remove the other item if I needed healing.

Now in a D&D model game world there might be better ways to get healing but the idea of what he's doing isn't unrealistic.

(admittedly my character carries 10 pre errata swiftshot hand crossbows but then again when the loading of guns was slow people carried around multiple guns...)

It could be creative, if you want to look at it that way, but it's creative in a way that only looks at rules, and tends to break immersion in the setting. It's the same as the character who would run two squares south to get a running start on his jump to the northeast - mechanically doable, but in the "reality" of the game hard to visualize and thus essentially cheese that reminds everyone they are playing, essentially, a board game.

How exactly is backing away to get a runup for a jump hard to visualise?
Strikes me as perfectly reasonable.
iirc it happened in one of the Indiana Jones films when a floor collapsed or a crevice opened up...

 

[twilsemail]

If I saw this at my table I'd probably inform you that you all of a sudden have another free night each week. YMMV and apparently does.

This was a knee-jerk response and I apologise for it. Taking the idea for what it is I'd talk it over with the player. It's entirely possible that there'd be a flavorful reason for it to happen. Adventurers seem like the kinds of people who'd work out a way to get around the system.

One thing in this whole set up I'd change is the minor action to put on an amulet. I've helped my fiance do this enough times to know it takes two free hands and more effort than picking a stick up off the ground.

If it were that easy to remove one of a character's most important items, I imagine enemies would be making more Thievery checks.

I still do not appreciate the spirit of what's behind this set of actions, but I can see how it might, possibly, work in a role-playing atmosphere.

 

[Stumblewyk]

How exactly is backing away to get a runup for a jump hard to visualise?
Strikes me as perfectly reasonable.
iirc it happened in one of the Indiana Jones films when a floor collapsed or a crevice opened up...

Yup. Happens in all of my games (as DM and player) all the time. Someone really wants that running start to leap, so they back up to get room for a running start. Perfectly reasonable, perfectly legitimate, perfectly realistic. After all, they're burning movement squares before the jump, meaning they likely won't be doing anything other than landing once they reach the other side of the leap, unless they want to (and can) charge something. It's not like they're squeezing the rules to get some giant mechanical benefit.

As for the OP, I'd allow it, once. As stated above by many others, it's a gigantic waste of resources for a meager benefit. After the player in question did it, I'd encourage them to find a less cheesy option for their character. It's not game breaking, but it is spirit-of-the-game breaking.

 

[Wik]

It's a character using up a lot of actions to be able to change his neck slot item.
Would you have the same feeling if the character removed his normal neck slot and put on the healing slot?

Oh, I have no problem with the mechanical side of it. It just bugs me on an RP side - it's someone using the mechanical rules for a benefit that does not "click" in the game setting. Characters in the campaign world do not know what's written in the PHB, as much as some people like to pretend otherwise.

(admittedly my character carries 10 pre errata swiftshot hand crossbows but then again when the loading of guns was slow people carried around multiple guns...)

Yeah, a lot of people carried multiple guns. Say, two or three. Carrying ten is a bit much, wouldn't you say? Again, fine by the rules, but doesn't make much sense in game. Wouldn't fly at my table, but different strokes for different folks and all that jazz.

How exactly is backing away to get a runup for a jump hard to visualise?
Strikes me as perfectly reasonable.

Fully agree - unless you're getting a running start, and using the momentum from that start to jump perpendicular (or even in an opposite direction) than your running start. That, to me, is VERY hard to visualize.

 

[Nichwee]

Fully agree - unless you're getting a running start, and using the momentum from that start to jump perpendicular (or even in an opposite direction) than your running start. That, to me, is VERY hard to visualize.

Yeah, this was the problem he was mentioning I think.
With the following situation:
SGD - S = Start Point, D = Destination
EGE - E = Empty Square, G = Gap to jump over
JGE - J = Where he jumps from
By moving 2 squares down (from S to J) the player can then do the 2 squares jump (from J to D = S to D = 2 squares) as a running jump. Totally cheese imo, but would be "usable" as a way to to get the running jump to jump from a ledge over a gap, or using up minimum movement if you had ended up next to the gap from previous actions.

 

[Solvarn]

One thing in this whole set up I'd change is the minor action to put on an amulet. I've helped my fiance do this enough times to know it takes two free hands and more effort than picking a stick up off the ground.

If it were that easy to remove one of a character's most important items, I imagine enemies would be making more Thievery checks.

I still do not appreciate the spirit of what's behind this set of actions, but I can see how it might, possibly, work in a role-playing atmosphere.

It's pretty funny I had thought about this same thing. I imagine though that some of the way these amulets come together are easier to maneuver, or might even be magical and come apart.

However, if that weren't the case, I wonder if a fumble might force a saving throw to see if you accidentally have a piece of equipment come loose.

Sure, I can be a swordmage, take Quick Draw, multi-class feat ranger, and get a Paired long sword. I can use the Dual Implement feat to get a bonus to damage with my offhand implement. I can use a free action, split the weapon, shoot a spell off, and then fold it back into one weapon as a free action. The rest of the time I'm getting my full Swordmage Warding. It works RAW, and actually sounds and probably looks really cool, but at the end of the day, is it really worth it? Couldn't I find a weapon with better properties? Couldn't I find an implement that might be worth me giving up my +2 to AC? Might I find a better feat than Quick Draw? Is the ability to dual wield basically wasted on a spellcaster?

The answer to all of these questions is yes. Sometimes, it's just easier to keep it simple.

 

[Mad Hamish]

Oh, I have no problem with the mechanical side of it. It just bugs me on an RP side - it's someone using the mechanical rules for a benefit that does not "click" in the game setting. Characters in the campaign world do not know what's written in the PHB, as much as some people like to pretend otherwise.

I don't agree with you there.
It strikes me as something that a person could easily try and do if they're in a world where the items exist and work.
(Whether it's practical in battle or under pressure is a different question)

If the ruleset doesn't reflect the world you want to play in then I'd say tinker with the ruleset, rule that if a slotted item is supressed by a second item then the second item's power takes 1-4 rounds to be unsupressed due to magical interfence or something.

Yeah, a lot of people carried multiple guns. Say, two or three. Carrying ten is a bit much, wouldn't you say? Again, fine by the rules, but doesn't make much sense in game. Wouldn't fly at my table, but different strokes for different folks and all that jazz.

swiftshot hand crossbows don't have the problem of going off when they're loaded and with bags of holding and handy haversacks carring more of them isn't a big problem.
It means that my ranger can get an additional shot off every round that he isn't quarying a new target which is a fair benefit. Admittedly less likely to hit than the normal greatbow attacks (due to no xbow expertise and +3 as opposed to +5 damage)
In reality I don't actually use them that often, I bought 10 because the cash didn't matter and it meant that I basically don't have to consider that I'll run out of them.

Fully agree - unless you're getting a running start, and using the momentum from that start to jump perpendicular (or even in an opposite direction) than your running start. That, to me, is VERY hard to visualize.

That was hard enough for me to visualise that I didn't even consider it as a possibility. I read the example as moving away so that you could get a runup and couldn't see the problem. I'd impose a penalty for a long jump if you were running away from the direction you were jumping in (unless you had an ability to always be considered as having a runing start for a jump, I believe there are powers and boot items which give that).

 

[Wik]

MH, let me sum up my feelings on the matter:

If the rules let you do something that upsets the thematic mood of the game, the onus should be on the player to not do it. And there are times where following the rules, even for a mechanical benefit, breaks the mood and reminds everyone that they're playing a game and moving minis across a board, and not fighting ghouls/dragons/frenchmen/whatever.

Running in one direction so you can jump in the reverse, while true by the rules, is a good example. Carrying ten crossbows in your bag of holding and firing/dropping them at an absurd rate is another. Flipping between two cloaks when you get hurt ("this cloak is for when I'm all cut up! See? It's RED!") is another example.

Again, what you do at your own table is your own perogative. But I can say, with utmost certainty, that many of the things mentioned in this thread would be met with groans by the majority of the table. I just hate that method of gaming thinking at my table.

 

[Mr. Wilson]

I'd laugh hysterically saying "You burned 2 surges without any bonuses on them and took a whole turn to do it?!".

I'd allow it simply because it is such a poor use of resources (especially for those strikers hehhehhehheh)

QFT.

Unless you're running with no leader, seems like a very poor use of two surges.

 

[Ryujin]

It's pretty funny I had thought about this same thing. I imagine though that some of the way these amulets come together are easier to maneuver, or might even be magical and come apart.

However, if that weren't the case, I wonder if a fumble might force a saving throw to see if you accidentally have a piece of equipment come loose.

Sure, I can be a swordmage, take Quick Draw, multi-class feat ranger, and get a Paired long sword. I can use the Dual Implement feat to get a bonus to damage with my offhand implement. I can use a free action, split the weapon, shoot a spell off, and then fold it back into one weapon as a free action. The rest of the time I'm getting my full Swordmage Warding. It works RAW, and actually sounds and probably looks really cool, but at the end of the day, is it really worth it? Couldn't I find a weapon with better properties? Couldn't I find an implement that might be worth me giving up my +2 to AC? Might I find a better feat than Quick Draw? Is the ability to dual wield basically wasted on a spellcaster?

The answer to all of these questions is yes. Sometimes, it's just easier to keep it simple.

Yup, that would work the first time. Maybe even the second time. The third time that you did it, an intelligent enemy would be triggering his attack on the moment that the sword duplicated, getting by your Warding

There are frequently simple and reasonable ways for an opponent to bypass cheese like that so yes, you'd be better advised to find a more appropriate implement.